Thursday, January 21, 2016

I just met a fellow who has taken over 100 IQ tests. He claims IQ scores as high as 180 (D15). Of course, these tests are not properly normed, created by individuals, generally on very restricted developmental budgets. This fellow, for example, admitted to scores between 135 and 180. So, obviously, the reliability of these tests is highly suspect.

Tests such as the WAIS do render raw scores above the ceiling, which is 160. However, they are over the ceiling for a reason. After extensive analysis, they prove to be unreliable. The independent tests often cannot undertake such analysis and have no reliable ceiling.

Still, what if you just must have some idea of by how much you exceed the ceiling. I have developed two methods that may help you.

First, as you will see on my page H. macrocephalus, there seems to be a pretty good fit on cranial volume, for men at least. We need to expand the study because there are few women at this IQ range and the few I found did not have huge noggins.

Anyway, you can estimate your cranial volume and then use the regression formula, IQ=20%V-181. So, if you calculate a cranial volume of, say, 1,800 cc, you have a cranial IQ of 179. That, however, is a ratio IQ, so your D15IQ is 158. So, with this volume, you have no evidence that your IQ might exceed the ceiling of 160.

However, if your cranial volume is more than 1,850, then it will render a higher score. Mine, adjusted for height is 1,993 which translates to 215 or a D15IQ of 177. So, I have a data point suggesing that my IQ may be significantly over the ceiling.

Next, we know that the IQs of children are usually expected to regress to the mean by about 30% to 40% on the assumption that the heritability portion IQ subtracted from 1 equals the environmental portion that would be randomly distributed. There are two things wrong with that. First, very high IQs can be expected to be, at least in part, the result of rare recessives that will not perpetuate into the next generation. In other words, we should expect some genetic regression. Second, people tend to reproduce the environment in which they, themselves, were reared. In other words, the assumption that, on average, two 140 IQ people will rear their children in a 50%'ile environment is flawed. Empirical tests suggest that the regression to the mean is likely more like 25%.

Lastly, while it is controversial, women appear to have a standard deviation of 13.2 and men have 16.8. Some researchers have found a different mean IQ, but that is still very controversial. Because of this, for calculation purposes, calculations should be done on a standard deviation basis. And, as we see in H. macrocephalus, it should all be calculated on a ratio scale.

My three children have a mean IQ of about 3.2 σ and their mother about 1.8σ. The implied mean of their mother and me is 3.2/.75=4.3σ. From this, we can estimate my IQ at 4.3x2-1.8=6.8σ or a ratio IQ of 208.8 or a D15IQ of 170.So, I could take the three values of 168, 170 and 177, average them and derive an IQ of 172. It is interesting that when I read biographies, I feel the greatest kinship to Leibniz, who Cox, et alia estimated at 172 D15IQ.

However, when people ask me my IQ I tell them that I exceeded the ceiling on the IQ test that I took, so, over 160. That leads to an interesting discussion about how come the Internet is so full of IQ scores higher than that. That's a good discussion to have.

What I don't do is say 172 for the simple reason that I consider these calculations to be fun rather than reliable. However since there is clearly a large population of high IQ people who want to know how much they exceed the ceiling, I will give you this.

Saturday, January 16, 2016

"Republicans and Democrats are more divided along ideological lines – and partisan antipathy is deeper and more extensive – than at any point in the last two decades. These trends manifest themselves in myriad ways, both in politics and in everyday life. And a new survey of 10,000 adults nationwide finds that these divisions are greatest among those who are the most engaged and active in the political process."

This is currently playing out in both the Democratic and Republican presidential nominating process. In the Republican race, the two most polarizing candidates, Trump and Cruz are garnering the largest pluralities. On the Democratic side, while not leading, Sanders is beginning to enjoy significant support nationally.

Trump's route to the nomination is not as direct as the media is making it sound. The party machinery doesn't like him, both on personal grounds and the belief that, in the end, he is unelectable. He is leading Cruz and Rubio now, about 34% to 19% to 13%. However the 34% not yet in one of these corners are not likely to break well for Trump.

Cruz will likely get the 4% of the support currently registering for Paul and Huckabee bringing him to 23%. Rubio will likely get the 11% of support currently registering for Bush, Christie and Kasich bringing him to 24%. The 14% currently supporting Carson and Fiorina are more difficult to assign as the field narrows. Also, the 5% currently undecided are not likely to break to Trump and probably not to Cruz.

Therefore, absent party leaders making overtly anti-Trump rules for the nominating process, it appears inevitable that we will go into the convention with no candidate possessing a majority of delegates. As delegates are released from their commitments in the second ballot and beyond, we can expect a general move away from Trump.

It is very unlikely, but it is possible that Trump could grab the nomination, especially if he made a deal with Cruz. Current polls, however, give him little chance in a general election. This is especially true because turnout among Trump supporters is likely to be weak. In other words, though the polls currently show him just 1.8% behind Clinton and 2.0% behind Sanders, his actual ballot box deficit is probably much greater. In essence, Republican leadership, probably correctly, view him as unelectable.

As a dyed in the wool, European style Social Democrat, Bernie Sanders is a darling of the Northeast intellectual Liberal. However, much of his support is an anti-Hillary vote and is buoyed by a general lack of understanding of his political philosophy. Once campaigns 'go negative' he will get savaged, first by Clinton and, if he somehow survives that, by the Republican nominee. As much as Democratic leadership like the Sanders message, they will properly consider him unelectable.

While the nomination of either Trump or Sanders is unlikely, the probability that they both get nominated is non-zero. What happens when two 'unelectable' candidates are nominated? Well, I don't know for sure. I am pretty sure that when the campaigns go negative, they will both hit home with regularity and, by the end, the general mood of the electorate will be one of disgust. I would expect that we would see the lowest turnout in history.

It is a nightmare for both parties. The ensuing race to the bottom will besmirch both parties and the U.S. in general. I suspect that much of Western Europe would view it as a horrific spectacle as a boorish populist savaged a good and reflective man.

I am simply taking solace in the probability that neither will happen. Hillary Clinton, as damaged as she is a candidate, will almost surely limp to the nomination. The Republican party will undoubtedly do whatever is necessary, including manipulating the primary and convention rules to assure that Trump is not the candidate. That turns it into contest between the Tea Party beknighted Ted Cruz and the final candidate of the moderate Republicans. The current assumption is that the party leadership will rather unenthusiastically give the nod to Rubio.

The moderate wing has historically gotten its way from Bush to Dole to Bush to McCain to Romney. However, we must acknowledge the strength of Cruz, especially if Trump delegates as they abandon him go strongly to Cruz.

Thursday, January 14, 2016

I am searching for Charter Members to Polymathica who are interested in professionally moderating one of our Polymathica Groups. I am moderator for ‘Remediation of the Inappropriately Excluded’ group and Ivan Shekerev will moderate ‘Increasing Lifespans/Healthspans’. Ivan and I also moderate a few other groups but we should pass those off to others.

Each group has an affiliated forum and the moderator should create an off-site (blogger or wordpress) blog or youtube channel. They are free to monetize this as they see fit, of course, and additionally, they will use it to direct people to the group and, thereby, to Polymathica. In other words, this will grow both their group AND Polymathica.

The power of this is that every administrator will do this and since Polymathicans will join several groups, the joint activity will multiply their group membership. My goal is that we have 300 groups and if each administrator brings 720 members (requirement over two years) and the average Polymathican belongs to 10 groups, the average group will have 7,200 members.

The group owner can mass e-mail all the members of their group, something that was once possible for Facebook groups of less than 5,000 but now is not. They can use this as a weekly group newsletter and include links to their blog. A typical income from a newsletter is about 35USD CPM. In the above example that means $252 per week. And that does not include the income from their blog or the revenue share on the group and forum page views (40% of total ad revenue.)

Also, that is just a start. With a steady stream of advertising revenue coming to Polymathica, it will be able to begin organizational development campaigns that will bring our total membership over a few years to, perhaps, 4.0 million. I support this number elsewhere. That is 40,000,000 group memberships or 133,000 per group. That works out to 4,655USD per week for the newsletter alone.

Clearly, with time, the monetizing options are enormous and, potentially, this can evolve into Information Age income for just a part-time commitment for administrators. Some will choose to make this a full time commitment by operating two or even three groups. Of course, while the icome potential is high, it will require a significant and sustained commitment to success.Of course, they can use other social media platforms to recruit their group members. If they are already running a group on Facebook or other social media platform, they can use that to build their Polymathica group. I used the Polymathica group on Facebook to very quickly get 78 members, so it works well. I expect, without much effort, I will get a few hundred from the group.

I can't emphasize this enough. Curating and moderating a group is a lot of work. On facebook, administrators do it and Mark Zuckerberg and his investors keep 100% of the ad revenue. Also, they design the groups to thwart any effort you may undertake to some compensation. That is not fair and in the end, because the groups are run by volunteers, it results in a poorer group.

In Polymathica, as a group administrator, you will receive 40% of the ad revenue generated and 100% of a facilitated newsletter. That is fair and because you are being paid to create the best group possible, it will benefit group members, not Facebook stockholders.If you are interested in curating and professionally moderating a Polymathica group/forum, join http://polymathica.network-maker.com and apply for membership in the group administrator candidates group.

Saturday, January 9, 2016

I have a plan to build Polymathica by recruiting and
deploying 300 Charter Members to The Polymathic Institute and P.E.N. Each will be required to acquire 720
Polymathicans over a two year period. I
have already done this, so I know it is doable.
Of late my subscribers have not come from the proximate Facebook
environment but rather from virality and key words. To acquire 720 Polymathicans a blog will
need, depending upon the quality, about 100,000 pageviews or about 4,000 per
month. So, it does not require a high
volume blog.

At the end of this process, Polymathica will have gotten
210,000 members from the Charter Members and about 90,000 from organic growth
for a total of 300,000. However, this is
just the beginning and over the next thirty months, it will grow three-fold per
year (average of successful Internet enterprises) to around market saturation
of 4.0 to 6.0 million Polymathicans. At
this level, Charter Members will be able to build a part time enterprise that
will provide Information Age income and thereby finance their finely crafted
life.

In 2008, Kevin Kelley wrote a seminal article, ‘1,000 True
Fans’ in which he suggested that microniche creatives could make a livable
income by finding 1,000 ‘true fans’ who would provide them with 100 USD each
for a total of 100,000 USD. However,
because finding 1,000 true fans among the billion or so Internet users in the
developed world is nearly impossible, the article was more inspiring than
enabling. Polymathica charter membership
will change that for 300 people.

First, the 1,000 true fan model is overly constraining. In reality the number of fans needed, how ‘true’
they must be and the amount received from each will vary from one creative to
the next. A median, however, will likely
be 100,000 @ 10USD each. For example, a
singer/songwriter can produce one download album per year for 10 USD and the
100,000 ‘true fans’ don’t need to be all that true, since the expenditure is
minimal. On the other hand, an artist
who produces limited run lithographs for $200 each may need only 5,000 ‘true
fans’ but, because of the price point, they will need truer fans.

A novelist will be similar to a musician at
100,000x10USD. Another common creative
will be an audio ‘talk show’ host a la Rush Limbaugh. The going rate for a premium subscription is
about 50USD, so the business model is 20,000x50USD. Premium newsletters are another option which
have a going rate of about 25USD for a business model of 40,000x25USD.

In each case, I am using a 1,000,000USD total revenue model
which, in most cases, will generate a personal income between 500,000USD and
750,000USD. Of course, the model is a
median and some Charter Members will realize more and some may realize
less. The most important takeaway is
that the Charter Membership strategy will enable the ‘1,000 True Fan’ model
which is essentially not feasible for an individual attempting it alone.

As a Charter Member, you will lead 720 Polymathicans to a
subscription to the free newsletter, ‘The Polymath’. You will have a unique referral code that
will designate the subscriber as one of yours and will be counted toward your
720 requirement. You will have direct
access to not only your referral code signups, through
Polymathica.network-maker.com you will have a group that will attract members
from the Polymathicans brought in by the other 299 Charter Members. This is the actual power of this
strategy. You are multiplying your
access to potential ‘true fans’ by nearly 300 fold at no additional cost and
very little additional work.

If your model is 30,000x35USD, you can get there by getting 30,000/300=100 from
each Charter Member. As Polymathica
starts internally financing membership growth, this will become far
easier. If saturation is five million
and the average Polymathican belongs to six groups, average group membership
will be 5 million x 6 / 300 = 100,000 which supports a model of 100,000x10USD.

If your business model requires funding, the base Membership will be available
for crowdfunding. If you need
collaborators or strategic partners, the Polymathica membership will be
available for recruiting. And, of
course, group members can be e-mailed directly, since the group is essentially
a web based, formatted e-mail list.
Lastly, the ad revenue created by site based page views (group and
forum) will carry a 40% share for the group owner.

While Charter Membership gives you direct access to funders, collaborators and
customers, it will still be up to the Charter Member to design a group and a
business model that will be successful given the Polymathican profile.

Join The Polymathic Enterprise Network

We are searching for 150 founders by year end 2017. By paying for one year Membership in The Polymathic Institute, you will receive lifetime membership. This is an opportunity to build a finely crafted life as a Polymath. To learn more, read the page, Polymathic Institute Founding Members.

Membership e-mail

Michael W. Ferguson

Polymath, visionary and change agent

A home for the intellectually sophisticated

Subscribe to The Polymath

The Polymath is the official publication of Polymathica, a global community of refinement and erudition, and The Polymathic Institute, which promotes polymathic research, education, careers and lifestyles. It also promotes projects designed to be remediation for the Inappropriately Excluded.

Your referral code is 32950. It is used to track the source of our new subscribers.

Polymathica Social Media

Register at http://polymathica.network-maker.com and join me at 'Remediation for the Inappropriately Excluded' group. I am aggressively building a series of professionally curated discussion groups and related fora.

Polymathica is a growing, global community of refinement and erudition and a nascent, Information Age Culture of Affluence.

Polymathican Blogs

Remediation Resources

Experiment.com will be a useful tool in our goal of remediation for Polymaths and the inappropriately excluded. While this site provides a good format for funding independent research, it is not going to provide an adequate supply of funders. However, by utilizing our contacts in Polymathica we can move forward in the Polymathic Institute's goal to promote polymathic research and secondarily, polymathic careers.

Fundable.com for many this will be the best crowdfunding platform for equity offerings. Their charge is $179 per month. Of course, the payment processing fee of 3.2% to 3.7% is extra. Still, a three month, $500,000 offering will only have a total cost of around $18,000 to $20,000 far below the 9% to 10% of most platforms. Of course, like all equity funding sites, you will need to bring most of the investors yourself. That is where P.E.N. comes in.

My Quotes

From time to time I post something that deserves more than ephemeral exposure. When that happens, I post it here.

Career Advice

You can't earn a living telling people how things are or how they will be. You earn a living by feeding their confirmation bias. That is not a career to which one should aspire.

On Fools

I really have attempted to abide by the apostolic admonition to suffer fools gladly. However, in the end, there were just too many of them.

On Being Human

I was asked, 'In what way does human intellect differ from other animals in kind and not just in degree?' I answered, 'Only humans can ask that question.'

On Opinions

Those who say, 'That's just my opinion' rarely mean it. Those who say, 'That's just your opinion' almost always do.

IQ in Perspective

A guy once quoted to me, 'When a wise man points at a star the fool looks at his finger.'
I replied, 'True. But so does my dog and I love her dearly.
Let's not overly weigh intelligence in our assessments of worth.'

The First Principle of Information Age Political Philosophy

No person should be required to live under a body of laws, programs and policies that they consider to be fundamentally unjust.

How Markets Really Work

Perception is reality...until reality steps in and says, 'OK, enough!!!'

On the Mainstream News

Pitting a Left Wing lunatic against a Right Wing lunatic gets you a whole lot of pyrotechnics but absolutely no useful insights. You can't average them and find yourself in a defensible middle.

Knowing the Future

There has been no time in the last 200 years when the world thirty years hence was generally believable. Therefore, if someone tells you what the world will be like in thirty years and it seems reasonable, history says that they are wrong.

Make a Difference

I am interested in what you have done, what you are doing and what you will do. I am supremely indifferent to what you could do, but won't. Consequently, I don't care very much about your IQ.